Yet Another Court Says IP Addresses Are Not Enough To Positively Identify Infringers

from the time-for-some-venue-shopping,-it-would-appear dept

The neverending misadventures of Prenda Law and its various attachments have led me to consider retiring this phrase when writing about them: "just when you thought it couldn't get any worse..." Prenda's situation obviously can (and will) likely get much worse, well past the point of any reasonable person's expectations.

Southern District of California Judge Barry Moskowitz has found that an IP address, alone, is insufficient to support a complaint for copyright infringement. The lawsuit is AF Holdings v. Rogers (CASD 12-cv-01519) brought by the infamous Prenda Law Firm http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/category/clans/prenda/. The complaint alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and negligence...

[...] the Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the FAC does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address 68.8.137.53. (The Court notes that it is actually unclear whether the IP address is registered to Defendant). As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.

More and more courts are coming to this same conclusion, which doesn't bode well for those in the copyright trolling business. While they still may see some limited success collecting on threatening letters, the chances of them winning anything via the proper legal route is beginning to approach zero.

As Judge Otis Wright pointed out, Prenda's use of IP addresses to "identify" infringers boils down to nothing more than finding someone in the household that best matches its idea of who the likely infringer is, which seemed to involve nothing more than "blindly picking a male resident from the subscriber's home."

Judge Moskowitz lays it all on the line, making it perfectly clear that he won't be accepting IP addresses (alone) as evidence.

Due to the risk of “false positives,” an allegation that an IP address is registered to an individual is not sufficient in and of itself to support a claim that the individual is guilty of infringement.

Once again, Prenda's business model is getting kicked while it's down. As Wright pointed out in his order, properly identifying infringers takes both time and money, two commodities Prenda seems unwilling to part with. Moskowitz apparently won't be entertaining these dubious claims any further. He also takes aim at the same issue that resulted in a setback/smackdown for AF Holdings (friends of Prenda): so-called "negligence" on the part of the subscribers.

Plaintiff’s claim fails because there is no underlying duty. One who fails to act to protect another is generally not liable for breaching a duty unless there is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act. [...] There is no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant which gives rise to a duty on the part of Defendant to ensure, through heightened security measures and hawkish monitoring of internet usage, that nobody uses his internet connection to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.

The end result? A dismissal of Prenda's claims of copyright infringement and contributory infringement without prejudice. This leaves the door open for refiling, but considering how many doors in California are being slammed shut elsewhere by various judges, it seems unlikely that Prenda will push its luck, at least for the time being. This dismissal adds another court to the growing list of judicial entities that are unlikely to push forward on copyright infringement cases where the evidence of wrongdoing is nothing more than an IP address. How much sway this dismissal holds elsewhere remains to be seen, but it's another blow struck against the settlement letter "business model."

'properly identifying infringers takes both time and money, two commodities Prenda seems unwilling to part with'

and we all know it is exactly the same with the entertainment and other industries. they want to be able to sue people using nothing more than an IP address. they expect the court to rule in their favour, then give the maximum sentences and fines possible plus some more! how is that 'proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt'?

Re:

"how is that 'proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt'?"

It's not, which is why they attempted to force people through the civil system (where lower standards of proof are acceptable) or simply extort the money through threats before they see the inside of a courtroom. Providing actual proof of wrongdoing - let alone actual losses caused by those actions - is "too hard".

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Prenda and their shell companies aren't government entities so they can't pursue criminal charges. Prosecutors have to decide to do that. And if they could convince a prosecutor to pursue the cases, there wouldn't be any monetary gain for them. Any fines assessed as penalties would go to the government not the companies anyway.

This doesn't even come close to the sheer level of fail that Prenda is producing, looking at SJD's coverage of the whole debacle. Prenda's representative, Brett Gibbs, has even resorted to lying about the Does he sues, insisting that they have no neighbours who might leech Wifi (when in fact the Does are surrounded by neighbouring houses).

These are the heroes that average_joe, bob, out_of_the_asscrack, hurricane head up his ass fervently worship, respect, trust and love. Not a pretty sight at all, lads.

" As Wright pointed out in his order, properly identifying infringers takes both time and money,"

The MAFIAA already knows this, and so they have opted to side step it and institute 6 strikes without any due process at no cost to them. If they can get the ISP's to hand over subscriber info for infringers the MAFIAA is then free to hire Prenda and others to shake down 'offenders' for a fat percentage of the profits, mostly bypassing the laws of the land.

Re: Re: Re:

Extortion is a criminal offense, not sure if it is a felony although apparently copyright infringement is.

District Attorney is an elected official representing government in the prosecution of criminal offenses, who represents the people in their (desired) prosecution of criminal offenses?

I find it amazing that the DA is allowed to look the other way when criminal offenses of large magnitude are occurring in their own back yard. Dereliction of duty comes to mind, possibly incompetence, but more likely it is corruption.

Re:

"There is no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant which gives rise to a duty on the part of Defendant to ensure, through heightened security measures and hawkish monitoring of internet usage, that nobody uses his internet connection to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright."

Re: Re:

Oh, I agree. But I don't think that will happen, because six strikes is set up totally outside the legal system (at least as I understand it). There is no due process, just an accusation.

Six strikes is just a 'gentleman's agreement' between companies, leaving you, the end user, with no recourse.

You know the old saying: "When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack."

Well the MAFIAA don't have the law on their side, and they don't have the facts on the side, what are they left with? So, they are attacking the consumer.

Their master plan...

IP addresses can be spoofed. Proxies can be used. Public access computers can be used. A person (if he is fortunate enough) can sign up with a small-town ISP under an alias and other fake info. Innocent people's computers can be zombiefied. Lots of factors can come into play. So no, an IP address alone can't identify a specific individual.
Having said that, anyone who surfs the net, posts, or downloads using his home computer without masking his IP address in some way is a dang fool.

Re:

Then hopefully the people will know enough to screw the MAFIAA and their Stooge ISP's .
I do hope that somehow a massive class action Lawsuit can occur.
If not I hope that Millions consider it an "Act Of War" and do a proper response action.

As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity.

Judges are, for the most part, human, and are capable with time and education of recognizing bullshit when they see it. Let's hope the weight of law has finally driven a stake through the cold dead heart of this particular assertion.

Re: Re:

Kudos Judge Moskowitz

I went before Judge Moskowitz about a decade ago and I was very very impressed by him. Cool demeanor and calmly articulate, and more than just "Article III Judge" intimidating, but physically. He looked like he could kick your ass out in the real world.

Prenda will want to be circumspect about attempting any of its past acts of tossing around serious allegations against the court and opposing counsel, and should seriously consider whether to even file an amended Complaint...

Re: Re: Re:

The takedowns from Prenda Law and the porn company are based on tracing an IP Address back to whomever infringed. Six Strikes works the same way and is within the bound confines of the law. No ISP policy is above the law and therefore, because of the methods used to determine who someone is in the Six Strikes policy, the case within Prenda will in fact nullify Six Strikes. Judges recognize that.

On a router, all you have to do is set up a router and Enable a sub net mask, a proxy, or an NAT to spoof your specific IP address within your home network. Since MAC addresses are kept private for privacy laws...in the Six Strikes format, it is also impossible to determine an infringing user within a network...which means they can only track who you are by the modem assigned to you.

That is why it will set a precedent against Six Strikes.

I'm still waiting for proof of your being a legal consultant Mr. Applegate... :-P

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Never claimed to be a legal consultant. You have a problem with the english language. I said "One of the firms I consult for..." I am not a legal consultant, I never claimed to be one. In point of fact I am a Computer Systems Consultant, I have legal firms as clients.

As a computer consultant there is so much technically wrong with this:

On a router, all you have to do is set up a router and Enable a sub net mask, a proxy, or an NAT to spoof your specific IP address within your home network. Since MAC addresses are kept private for privacy laws...in the Six Strikes format, it is also impossible to determine an infringing user within a network...which means they can only track who you are by the modem assigned to you.

I don't even really want to get into it, but for starters.

MAC Addresses aren't "kept private for privacy laws.."

MAC Addresses are used by computer equipment to route data. There are no laws about keeping MAC Addresses private.

I could go on but there is no point really so don't worry, I am not going to ask you for a cite, because I know you won't give one. You will probably tell me you can't due to "HIPA[Sic] laws".

You very obviously don't know what you are talking about, and you really don't care to understand the truth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"One of the firms I consult for....." As in law firms.

"Be gone troll"
Yes because you haven't done the same by asking me to back up claims on my own personal experience concerning my brother's disability benefits case. I used the paper standard the US supreme court demands on the advice of my lawyer to present it to a judge.....who barely had to look through it to approve. I did it mainly for presentation purposes and it worked.

Now as for things I supposedly don't know what I'm talking about...you stating that is trolling itself but since you asked me to back up the claims of my knowledge (I mean seriously do you want me to fucking post the certificate of my doctorate in Psychology? I have to keep up with technology in my profession and am in the process of CompTIA A+ certification as a backup, but I guess you wouldn't believe me unless there was a screenshot of what I was saying).

An NAT enabled router switches the IP address information on outgoing data packets before going through the DNS gateway provided by a Cable or DSL modem so that the data packets cannot be traced by those trying to brute force there way into a network.

A proxy is a computer set up either with VPN or on a local network and downloads information for the users connected to the proxy.

But I'm sure that those two methods are way beyond your comprehension as a troll.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Posting proof of certificates or what have you DOES NOT mean you know a thing.

Not aiming that directly at you, but it's a fact.

I know plenty of people who have no certifications in a variety of fields or subjects and all of whom are masters of their craft.

I also know plenty of people with degrees and certificates and all that other nonsense and who know jack shit and who I wouldn't trust to successfully build a Lego set even with the included instructions.

And sorry to say, but on more than one occasion on this site you've made claims that were provably and completely false regarding technology.

Also, for yet the upteenth time I'm sure, someone questioning you DOES NOT a troll make. Nor does it mean they're goading you or whatnot. If you don't like to be questioned or have your "experience" or "knowledge" challenged, that's fine. Not everyone does, but more often than not such people have issues and suffice it to say they're ego related. But being questioned/challenged on a statement is not trolling or being trolled.

Get over yourself already.

(I'd list all the times you've been wrong and the responses correcting you/putting you in your place, but it'd be pointless to do so. Not too mention I'm now officially "trolling" you, am I right? How dare anyone question/challenge the wise and powerful, 26 year old, Wally.)

Re: Re: Re:

"There is no due process, just an accusation."

I am obviously not a lawyer and I am a Canadian, but I believe ISPs' have used a "not a broadcaster" argument relating to lawsuits and for tax/business purposes. They claim to be impartial. Redirecting my browser to an "education" page will change that status, in my opinion, just needs to be argued in court.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, I've pushed his buttons before. He's 26, which is sad as I'm 27 and not even at my most immature (18) did I ever act like he has.

If you question him, you're trolling him.

If you correct him, you're trolling him.

But I will say this, he claims to be a psychologist and have a psychology degree, what's interesting is he's "diagnosed" Julian Assange from tv interviews, something no truly self-respecting psychologist would EVER do. They might form an opinion, which is purely their own, on a person from television interviews, but they'd never base an entire diagnosis on that alone. Wally has.

He's also made claims about Android devices which have been completely unfounded and entirely untrue. Including devices he "claims to own". I've questioned him on his own devices, going so far as to provide corrections based on actual facts and from more than credible sources pointing out his errors on his own device. Nope, I'm wrong and just trolling him. [rolls eyes]

That's why, as much as I respect most people who have a username on this site, I don't respect Wally at all. (And that's overlooking his labeling anyone who questions/challenges him a "troll". His immaturity is astonishing, as his inability to admit when he's wrong.)

I'd also like to add, I work in IT. I have no certifications whatsoever. I also work with Android devices. Again, no developer certifications whatsoever. Therefore, in Wally's world, I can't even begin to know anything about any of those things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I'd also like to add, I work in IT. I have no certifications whatsoever"I completely understand. Certs truly don't mean much, about all they are good for is getting a foot in the door for an interview.

I have no certs, but I make a very good living running my own company consulting for companies in many different industries. I am well versed in many areas of technology.

"Well, I've pushed his buttons before. He's 26,"

Yeah, I really got under his skin, to the point he has taken to calling me lots of names and he is cross posting to try to get to me. As if I care.

Re: Re:

A few years ago (4 or 5, maybe?) I checked my firewall log after getting off the net one day. I saw that my firewall fended off an invasion attempt from Russia which was using the EXACT SAME IP ADDRESS as my net connection.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

By default, BitTorrent trackers record the source IP address from the request as the actual address of the peer to be delivered to others. But, some BitTorrent tracker implementations support an optional extension to the peer request message that allows requesting clients to specify a different IP address that the tracker should record in its list of peers instead. This is intended to provide support for proxy servers and peers/trackers behind the same NAT.

At this point I am reluctant to reveal lawsuits where copyright trolls are rolling the dice with this issue with overtly hostile judges. These are dismissal motions made after a Doe has been served. Smart trolls would cut and run but not these stupid fucks. Sorry I cannot give more info at this time but I am not in the business of educations trolls about upcoming minefields.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Erm, you really haven't got a clue what you're talking about here. There's a huge number of things factually wrong with what you're saying, and pointing those things out to you does not make him a troll. A doctorate of psychology really doesn't help you back up the technical facts you have wrong, sorry. Plus, A+ certification is a very basic entry level certification that means you know which end of a PC you're looking at, it really doesn't make you an expert in anything at all. Perhaps you should realise that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't recall calling you anything but a troll really. Honestly, once you drop your attitude problem, you'll find I'm a lot nicer.

The AC you are communicating to about me had a habit of calling me out about anything I said about Apple Computer Inc....even in criticism. Going as far as claiming me to be a fanboy. What's even more funny is that he can't stand any criticism of Google or Android.

Why was I a fanboy?? I preferred Mac System 7 and OS8 over OSX.

You Mr. Applegate, had done nothing but troll my comments and not sufficiently explain why I was wrong without insulting me. I only brought up one post and any person smarter than a kindergartener can see that. Grow up.

Now seriously, just stop. If you can't back up any claims or tell me I am wrong in an intelligent, convincing way as an adult, you might as well not post. Otherwise you won't be taken seriously by me.

Trolling is only acceptable when all can laugh at a gaffe...but then against that's a friendly jab and not trolling at all....so trolling the way you have in unacceptable.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They do act as an arbiter. But certain laws in the US pertaining to client confidentiality apply in the US. TimeWarner and Verizon have TOS policies that require it solely for a criminal investigation...and there has to be a warrant. The way Six Strikes works in the US on the RIAA and MPAA side is that the ISP gets requests from them to reveal information about their clients who are suspected. Both Verizon and TimeWarner protect those policies to the N'th degree.

Re: Re: Re:

Wow you missed the point Mr. Applegate. Rikuo knows what he's talking about....he was questioning the AC's logic.

Attacking someone based on your perceived view of their intellect only show you have something to prove. That's called a knowledge bias.

Oh and you missed the friendly gesture up there about paper... The order of colon, dash, upper-case letter "P", is a representation of an an emoticon where I'm jovially sticking my tongue out at you in sarcasm. Please learn your netiquette before you fly off the handle.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That would protect you from the ISP revealing your personal information without due course pertaining to a criminal case....Six Strikes only involves civil matters. Verizon actually cited the Sherman Antitrust act as a reason they would not reveal the owners of the IP addresses with the MPAA.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

To answer your question, though I think you already know....they can only identify the modem through specific IP adresses, not the specific computers on the network. Any NAT enabled router or some basic firwall software will help mask the internal IP adress of a computer on a network. Not only that, but it creates a liability clause due to the DMCA Article 17 §512 paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J because the person running the wireless or wired network provides a connection service to the systems on the network itself.

Say my internal IP Address is 192.168.1.203....an NAT enabled router would automatically change that fourth octet to a different number as packets are sent out from the router to the modem.

Prenda Law had no idea whom the real infringing people were , nor could they as the traces only go as far as the modem itself for ISP subscriber information.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The AC you are communicating to about me had a habit of calling me out about anything I said about Apple Computer Inc....even in criticism. Going as far as claiming me to be a fanboy."

Wally, you are a fanboy. You do nothing but defend Apple. You get defensive when others criticize, and not necessarily diss, Apple. You've done this repeatedly and routinely.

You've also brought up Apple in non-Apple articles/discussions.

All this makes you appear to be a fanboy, and is usually only done by fanboys.

If I need to go back and start finding every article you've done this in I will. Want me to? Because I can. And it all started with the time you claimed Apple took security seriously. Which I responded with multiple links and told you exactly what to search for regarding iTunes accounts being hacked. You said that didn't happen and you could find no proof of it. Then when I provided it you said I could find nothing recent. I did. At which point you said I was picking on you which eventually changed to trolling you.

At least act your age, not like a child. Be a man and admit you've been wrong before and stop calling others who question/challenge you a troll.

"What's even more funny is that he can't stand any criticism of Google or Android."

No, I can stand criticism of Google and Android. Heck, I criticize both regularly.

What I CANNOT stand is when people spread falsehoods and misinformation about both. Which you've done multiple times. (You've stated all Android devices are hard to root. False. You've stated Android devices run slow, based on only having used YOUR phone and YOUR MOM'S phone. So based on usage of two devices you've made claims about Android in general. Which are false. You've stated the Play Store is riddled with malware at every turn. BEYOND FALSE. I could go on, but doing so would show two things. One that you hate being called out when you're wrong And two, that I've never been critical of you unless you were asking for it, which usually means stating things that weren't even remotely true/factual/correct.)

You've also still yet to answer me when I questioned you about your Samsung Replenish. You know, the phone you claimed runs Android 3.1. Which is amusing because, again, 3.1 is Honeycomb, a version of Android developed ONLY for tablets. Now, could that have been a type on your part? Sure. But then again, YOUR supposed phone ONLY came with 2.3 on it. Which could never be confused for 2.1, much less 3.1. So again, we have you discussing things you claim to know about, and being called out on it by myself.

You do this often. You make claims about Android that are completely untrue. Which I will not tolerate and I will correct. If you don't like it, stop speaking about things you know nothing about. Or else, keep doing so and keep expecting me to correct you. Either way, grow up. If you can't handle criticism get off the internet.

Now, if you'll excuse me. I'm going to go to Ars and have an adult discussion about a few articles there. Without feeling the need to go "Man, I LOVE THIS PLACE! It's so much better here than over at Techdirt. Where people criticize each other and "troll" Wally." (Or should we blame that on your bad week and the weather again? Public meltdown online. Totally something a psychologist would do. Or not.)

Oh yeah, if you don't want me to drag things up or take cheap shots, make sure you don't do so to me first. That jab about me not being able to handle criticism about Google/Android, that was you firing the opening salvo. I'm a year older than you, have thicker skin, and know a bit more. I can play if you want to, but we both know who's going to call it quits first. And it ain't me. :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I want you to cite the law firms you "work" for as a measly little gopher consultant."

Or

"Once again, logic prevails over your pitiful excuse for a brain."

Then there is this

"Ignore OOTB...he posed as one Mr. Applegate in an earlier article."

Funny, I didn't post anything in that thread, in fact I didn't' read the article, but there is your baseless claim anyway.

I know, you will probably say "technically not name calling" your right just childish antics of personal attack by someone who is wrong and is not man enough to admit it.

Someone who CLAIMS to have a doctorate in psychology, is rather obviously being very manipulative. AND yes, in this case I am allowing myself to be manipulated.

I did explain why you are wrong, several times in the other thread. All of your claims are total BS, both in the other thread (which I won't drag into this thread) and in this one. It is blatantly obvious you know nothing about how IP network communications happen. You don't understand what a MAC Address is, or NAT or a Proxy or a subnet. There is no need for me to go into great detail here about why it is wrong, as it got me nothing but insults the last time.

I challenge you to take this to your A+ class instructor and ask him if it is technically correct. After all, it is your statement:

"On a router, all you have to do is set up a router and Enable a sub net mask, a proxy, or an NAT to spoof your specific IP address within your home network. Since MAC addresses are kept private for privacy laws...in the Six Strikes format, it is also impossible to determine an infringing user within a network...which means they can only track who you are by the modem assigned to you."

Once again you have claimed to have this great knowledge, but shown you don't even have a basic understanding of the subject matter involved. It is almost like you just took a bunch of technical terms and threw them into a bowl and pulled them out one after another. There is no logic to the order that even shows you understand how it works.

Myself and Paul T. both told you your statement above was factually incorrect so you did what you always do you try to side shift what you said and say well, even if the facts aren't right, I still am.

I have no intention to go into great detail why the statement is wrong as it got me nowhere the last time. Except that when I said I was done trying to explain it to you, you threw a bunch of insults at me and started cross posting in other threads to try to get to me.

You are calling me a troll. That is funny! You are the one cross posting, and saying I am posting under another name (I never have). The quotes cited above show rather conclusively that you are the one with troll like behavior. You are the one that needs to grow up and admit when you are wrong. You are the one that needs to stop cross posting to try to get to your targets.

This is my last post on this subject. I will not respond to anything you post on this subject, as I will not be manipulated further. In the future, I will call you out if I see you are factually incorrect, but I will not debate the point with you as you have no desire to learn anyway you think you already know it all. Quite frankly you are not worth my time. As I stated above you are trolling me, not the other way around.

Obviously, there are several others that feel the same way about you here. Physician heal thyself.

Re: Re: Re:

"Say my internal IP Address is 192.168.1.203....an NAT enabled router would automatically change that fourth octet to a different number as packets are sent out from the router to the modem."

WRONG! NAT (RFC 1631) allows a single device, such as a router, to act as an agent between the Internet (or "public network") and a local (or "private") network. This means that only a single, unique public IP address is required to represent an entire group of computers which have private IP address.

A NAT router doesn't simply change the "4th octet" as you say. The packet is re-written and a state table is created and maintained to facilitate communication.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"This is my last post on this subject. I will not respond to anything you post on this subject, as I will not be manipulated further. In the future, I will call you out if I see you are factually incorrect, but I will not debate the point with you as you have no desire to learn anyway you think you already know it all. Quite frankly you are not worth my time. As I stated above you are trolling me, not the other way around."

A firewall can do the same thing for you, and the difference is that the firewall will block attempted intrusions.

A firewall can either be software-based or hardware-based and is used to help keep a network secure. Its primary objective is to control the incoming and outgoing network traffic by analyzing the data packets and determining whether it should be allowed through or not, based on a predetermined rule set. A network's firewall builds a bridge between the internal network or computer it protects, upon securing that the other network is secure and trusted, usually an external (inter)network, such as the Internet, that is not assumed to be secure and trusted.

Excuse me for doing research and learning things and saying them without plagiarizing at first...I gained the knowledge through the course I currently am taking...I provided Wikipedia links because I prefer not to take a screen shot of who I am.....I have a right to my own personal levels of anonymity.

Now as I stated they work in similar fashion...the NAT process is frequently used in most hardware firewalls.

Which, to summarize, are that 1. you are not an expert, or even remotely knowledgeable, on technical matters 2. you will state things that are untrue and get defensive when questioned/called out on it 3. will not admit you're wrong when proven so and 4. act rather childish once you've been backed into a corner regarding being wrong.

I'm with Mr. Applegate, I won't continue pointing out your shortcomings and troll-like (or fanboy-like) behavior. But I will call you out when you're wrong. Keep that in mind before you make claims about Google/Android that are untrue/completely wrong. Criticism I can tolerate, stupidity and lies not so much.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The FOURTH octet refers to the last decoded 8 bit binary digit in an IP address....it ranges in number from 0 to 255.

The NAT router can be configured that way. The single most common home network address at the internal LAN scale is in fact 192.168.1.xxx. The last octet of that set has 0 (zero) reserved for the connection to the internet gateway (aka the modem)and reserves 1 in the last digit for connecting devices to the router itself.

I was not wrong in saying what I had said when I stated NAT Routers spoof the last octet in an IP address. Almost all wireless routers in the US that are not acting as repeaters have the 192.168.xxx addresses to simplify the connection process for home network users....

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only great deficiency in Wikipedia is that it leads people like Mr. Applegate to believe that the English language is solely limited to basic standard use. Yes you gain knowledge from it (Hell it helped in Anatomy and Physiology at times when my own notes seemed like gibberish) ...but there is no applied knowledge gained.

This is a message for those under the age of 18 or for anyone in general.

The reason why you are told to do your homework so much by your Algebra (one of the most useless forms of Mathematics of all time...I only blame the books on that) homework is to not make you do a senseless useless life skill through unrealistic word problems...but to ingrain and drill into your brain the life skill in that is priming you to use those skills in learning about every day life outside of math.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You've stated Android devices run slow, based on only having used YOUR phone and YOUR MOM'S phone."

It should be noted that her phone runs android just fine...I only kept saying I have a poor excuse of an Android phone myself and on numerous occasion pointed that out.

"Wally, you are a fanboy. You do nothing but defend Apple. You get defensive when others criticize, and not necessarily diss, Apple. You've done this repeatedly and routinely."

As a few of the insiders noted in the last time you called me out about being a fanboy.....I am no fanboy for feelings of nostalgia.

I despise OSX to a tea as I grew up on classic MacOS....System 6.0.8 on a MacPlus, System 7.1 on a Quadra 605, Various (dreadful) Apple Powermac 5200 models my Jr. High School had (MacOS Sysyem 7.6.1 and eventually MacOS8), and the PowerComputing PowerBase180 Macintosh clone (Mac OS 7.5.5) in my dad's classroom in high school.

I still play some of the old classics (Glider anyone??) on a Windows machine via an emulator named SheepShaver.

You continually drivel on about correcting me on Android with no point and not even realizing I simply don't care. Even if I gave Google any constuctive criticism for anything they had done wrong, but not entirely wrong...you flipped out telling me I had no clue what I was taking about in spite of personal experience of myself. I only said I prefer iOS because it is much easier for me to use in my daily life.....Then you continued on about how I was wrong about my own personal feelings as to why I preferred classic MacOS and iOS adverting and foaming at the mouth.

Once again in the matter of Android vs iOS...I prefer using an iOS device....but alas you're going to tell me again that I am wrong about how I feel on that in spite of exhaustive explanation after exhaustive explanation.

"You do this often. You make claims about Android that are completely untrue. Which I will not tolerate and I will correct."

You've been known to call me out on my preferences too so that statement is quite moot.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, you're really stretching to prove a point. You may have done research, but you're lacking understanding of the material, plus you're pretty desperate to avoid admitting you were mistaken about certain things. Yes, NAT may often be used by firewalls and yes, it can be important in how they direct traffic through them. That doesn't mean that NAT is a firewall, which was your original assertion.

"I gained the knowledge through the course I currently am taking"

I qualified as an A+ certified technician nearly 15 years ago at the start of my IT career . I'm now CCNP qualified (on top of various other certs), with years of experience in the field, on top of my technical degree. If your study for the most basic entry level certification after taking a non-technical degree is meant to impress me, you're doing a poor job. The fact that you think that your trawling of Wikipedia for basic information is impressive and act as though you're teaching me something is laughable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The fact that you think that your trawling of Wikipedia for basic information is impressive and act as though you're teaching me something is laughable."

Look at the time stamp....compare it to Mr. Applegate's post previous resourced post concerning wikipedia. I am learning online through a course. I used Wikipedia because apparently I cannot backup my claims that I had learned about newer technologies and standards in 2009 fusing together together. I claim no certs what-so-ever....except for my degree in psychology. But since my progress cannot be proven, the use of Wikipedia is my last resort.

Note the time stamp to Mr. Applegates post is quite closer to when the article came out than my response to you:

" A technique used to gain unauthorized access to computers, whereby the intruder sends messages to a computer with an IP address indicating that the message is coming from a trusted host. To engage in IP spoofing, a hacker must first use a variety of techniques to find an IP address of a trusted host and then modify the packet headers so that it appears that the packets are coming from that host.
Newer routers and firewall arrangements can offer protection against IP spoofing."

NAT does not "spoof" an IP address is more like an IP Masquerade. It allows multiple private IP Addresses to share one public IP Address, that is not spoofing.

"I was not wrong in saying what I had said when I stated NAT Routers spoof the last octet in an IP address. "

Yes, you are (and were) wrong. I provided links that, had you chose to read AND understand would have lead you to realize you were wrong.

First of all you are only addressing NAT on a Class C (/24) network. NAT works equally well on Class B (/16) or Class A (/8) (assuming you can manage the state tables).

NAT (Network Address Translation) takes a packet from private IP address such as 192.168.1.3 and forwards it to the GATEWAY, typically 192.168.1.1 (or 192.168.1.254) NAT then masquerades it as the public (WAN) address such as 8.8.8.8 (this is a google address, but is meant to represent your public IP Address), it does not "spoof the last octet of an ip address"!

So it takes traffic originating from 192.168.1.3:52369 and forwards it to the NAT Gateway (192.168.1.1) which sends it to the destination (8.8.4.4:80) as 8.8.8.8:49880 It then creates a state table so that it will know when it gets a response on 8.8.8.8:49880 that the traffic should be forwarded to 192.168.1.3:52369.

See NAT changes the ENTIRE IP Address, NOT the last octet.

YOU ARE WRONG!

"You are tying to prove me wrong at all costs."

No, I really am not. I have already proved you wrong numerous times (and frankly I don't care what you or anyone else thinks). I am trying to prevent you from spreading mis-information about topics to others. You claim to know much more than you do, and that is dangerous to those who may not realize what you are saying is not correct or at a minimum incomplete information.

I have ignored a great many posts of yours that are factually inaccurate, incomplete or flat out wrong. However, when I have time, and when I know the subject matter at hand I will call you (or anyone else) out when they make a false or mis-leading statement.

I am not 'out to get you'. If you will recall you are the one that has resorted to personal attacks on me rather than providing the facts needed to back up your claims, despite multiple requests for cites.

There is an old quote:

"The Rule of Law:
1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts.
3. If the facts and the law are against you, yell like hell."

Number 3 is exactly what you have resorted to in both of these threads.

Now if you truly are taking an A+ cert class good for you. I hope you understand an A+ cert only shows that you understand a bear minimum about computers, and almost nothing about networking, packet structure... However, it is a starting point, and everyone has to start somewhere.

I have been in computers far longer than you have been alive. I know a great deal about the IP protocol and in fact many, many areas of technology. As is often the case with 'geeks' like me, I am a little rough around the edges when it comes to dealing with people. That is especially true if those people claim to know more than they obviously actually know. When I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it, when I am correct I will say so.

Given your track record, I would strongly suggest that if someone tells you you are wrong you ask, why and / or go do some research, because honestly your track record isn't that great.

Very rarely do I take this much time to answer a post or to actually try to teach someone something. After all, I generally get paid for teaching people. ;^)

Truthfully, though networking is much to deep of a subject to try to teach here, you need to do a lot of reading and studying and setup a lab to play in. Only then will you understand it. What I have given you here is only a very narrow view of one slice of the networking world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Smart phones have proxy, VPN, IP blah blah blah....but it can be traced to a user since the data package belongs to a phone number which belongs to a specific person. So isn't this kinda the same thing?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I am learning online through a course"

...and you're arguing with people with years of industrial experience and more advanced certs than the one you're studying for, about very basic technology concepts. In response to people pointing out your lack understanding of the material, you simply acted condescending as if you were teaching me something, and keep bringing up your certification study as if that's meant to impress me. Yet it's clear you don't fully understand the material yourself.

Referring me to your arguments with other people is not relevant to what you're saying to me. You're simply making a fool out of yourself, waving around your uncompleted entry level study as though it demands some kind of respect from people who recognise how wrong your claims are. I wish you luck with your study, but you have a lot to learn.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It should be noted that her phone runs android just fine...I only kept saying I have a poor excuse of an Android phone myself and on numerous occasion pointed that out."

Wally, do you really want me to go back and find the first post you wrote about Android and your mom's phone, as well as the various post about your phone?

Because it will be noted that that is NOT what you said. And you still have yet to respond to my questions regarding your "alleged" phone. All of which call into question whether or not you even own said phone at all.

"As a few of the insiders noted in the last time you called me out about being a fanboy.....I am no fanboy for feelings of nostalgia."

Wally, again, that is NOT why I called you a fanboy. I called you a fanboy because you bring up Apple in non-Apple articles. I call you a fanboy because you go out of your way to defend Apple at every turn. (PaulT has noted this as well in another article.) I call you a fanboy, because the moment anyone starts criticizing Apple you show up to start saying things like, "Well, everyone else has problems/issues/blah blah blah." THAT IS WHY I CALL YOU A FANBOY. Not because you like an older version of the Mac OS.

"You continually drivel on about correcting me on Android with no point and not even realizing I simply don't care. Even if I gave Google any constuctive criticism for anything they had done wrong, but not entirely wrong...you flipped out telling me I had no clue what I was taking about in spite of personal experience of myself. I only said I prefer iOS because it is much easier for me to use in my daily life.....Then you continued on about how I was wrong about my own personal feelings as to why I preferred classic MacOS and iOS adverting and foaming at the mouth."

Wally, first off, you've NEVER given Google any constructive criticism. The last time you came even remotely close to that was in the article about Google Fiber. And even then you basically said Google Fiber was going nowhere and was a one-off experiment. I went and quoted a Google exec saying they were going to roll it out slowly in other locations. At which point you changed your tune to, "Oh, well yeah, sure, what I meant was..." rather than just admit you were wrong and obviously were speaking from ignorance.

And no, I don't continually correct you about Android with no point. The point for my corrections of your falsehoods is so that others won't believe your ignorant/incorrect statements regarding Android. Simple as that. I know you don't care. That much is obvious. Otherwise you'd get informed instead of repeating already proven incorrect misinformation about it.

As for the rest of what I quoted above, pure poppycock. I've never gone off at you about liking Mac OS or iOS. But I have pointed out how some of your statements about one or both were false. I specifically remember the security issues regarding hacked accounts. Why? Because that's the only time I've done so. I go out of my way to NOT respond to you, because you're a fanboy. Fanboys and OS X/iOS are NEVER wrong. [rolls eyes] There's no point showing you the colors of the world when you've got on rose tinted Apple can do no wrong glasses.

"Once again in the matter of Android vs iOS...I prefer using an iOS device....but alas you're going to tell me again that I am wrong about how I feel on that in spite of exhaustive explanation after exhaustive explanation."

Sheesh. You've got such a hard on to paint me as a villain you ignore the fact that on numerous occasions I've told you that having a preference is great and you're welcome to choose what works for you. But, again, I've told you that you misstate things about Android that are completely untrue. You also make generalizations about the entire OS based on usage of only two Android devices, two mediocre ones at that. You go out of your way to drag Android through the mud whenever there's an article about Apple's shortcomings with iOS/iOS products.

That is NOT speaking about your preferred device. All that is you taking shots at something you know very little about.

Like whatever the fuck you want. I don't care. Just STOP talking about Android when you know nothing about it. I work with iOS and Android devices regularly. I dislike iOS, that's my personal feeling about it. I prefer working with Android and I know quite a bit about it. So I will correct you every single time you say something false about it. People like you are the reason I have to show people Android devices and explain their usage to them, as well as numerous other things about them. Why? Because people like you spread lies and misinformation and people who don't know better believe such nonsense.

"You've been known to call me out on my preferences too so that statement is quite moot."

No, I haven't. You're trying to conflate your ignorance/misinformation campaign with your preference in device. I've told you the latter is all well and good to have, but the former is where you're in the wrong and then corrected you.

Again, I can easily go back and start copy/pasting links and we can see who's right/wrong/telling the truth or not. You aren't.

For a psychology major or whatever, it's amusing how you fail to see that you appear to have a persecution complex. "Everyone is out to get me." That's you.

I won't continue this any further. If it was all a matter of your opinion/preference I wouldn't speak at all, but again when you make claims and misstate the facts I'm going to call you out and will keep doing so. Pretend I'm doing more than that if you'd like, everyone can see the truth for themselves.

Just look above. You were called out for being wrong/not knowing what you were talking about by two people (Mr. Applegate and PaulT) and rather than just admit you were wrong, you got on the defensive early on, got insulting and also tried the appeal to authority (WANT ME TO POST MY DEGREE AND CERTIFICATIONS?!?!). That last one of which is hilarious as a degree in psychology has nothing to do with technology, any psychology student/professional would attest to that, and which means nothing about whether or not you know anything about technology.

Seriously, grow the fuck up. Act your goddamn age. And learn how to just say, "Hmm, I don't know" and "I was wrong". Do both those and you'll get a lot further in the world and not have to call everyone who questions/challenges/corrects you a "troll". Which is quite childish, given you're usually in the wrong.

For a bit more on Rule 20 Joinder as applied here

Re: Re: Re:

Also of note is that much like patent trolls, the plaintiffs doing this are shell companies created to buy the copyright to a few works, then sue, not the original producers of the content. So it's completely mercenary, and actually has nothing to do with having one's copyright infringed upon.